The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 2005. If the bill were presented
to the President, his senior advisers would recommend that he veto it.
H.R. 2005 would adopt a national 18-year statute of repose for "durable
goods," which includes any product used by a business, trade, or government
that is expected to last more than three years. H.R. 2005 would, in most
cases, bar the courtroom doors to any person or business seeking to recover
for personal injury or property damage caused by a defective durable good
if that product is more than 18 years old.

The proponents of H.R. 2005 argue that manufacturers of old machinery too
often are compelled to settle suits for harm to workers or property from
durable goods, although they should prevail on the merits, in order to
avoid the costs of litigation. The Administration supports efforts to
eliminate frivolous lawsuits, but does not believe that a Federally enacted
bar of all lawsuits involving older machinery is the solution. H.R.
2005 will cut off legitimate lawsuits along with frivolous ones, and this
flat denial of court access will fall most heavily on American workers --
the ones most likely to be injured by older, defective machinery. The
scope of the bill's bar on personal injury lawsuits is also unprecedented
-- it reaches all "civil actions" (not just product liability suits), and
does not give workers injured in a machine's 18th year any extension of
time to prepare their lawsuit. In addition, H.R. 2005 would preempt State
tort law, an area of policy-making that has traditionally been left to the
States.

H.R. 2005 would do more than harm injured workers, however. H.R. 2005
would also harm the American businesses, particularly small businesses,
that it purports to protect. The bill's bar on lawsuits for property
damage is even more onerous than its bar on lawsuits for personal injury
damage. The personal injury bar has narrow exceptions for persons who are
not already covered by worker's compensation or who suffer "toxic harm,"
but the property damage bar is absolute. Thus, for example, H.R. 2005
would seem to bar all lawsuits for the removal of asbestos and lead paint,
both of which are products used by businesses, expected to last more than
three years, and installed more than 18 years ago. As a result, this bill
would leave American businesses seeking remediation and removal of these
hazardous materials from their buildings without any legal recourse in all
50 States. Its impact would fall hardest upon small businesses and
individuals, those least able to shoulder the costs of remediation
themselves. Further, H.R. 2005 appears to preclude Federal and State
public health and environment enforcement actions related to property
damage. No sufficient reason has been advanced to justify this broad
extinguishment of legal liability and its resulting impact on Government
and businesses -- both large and small.

Because H.R. 2005 would work a radical shift in the allocation of tort
liability, to the detriment of American businesses and workers alike, the
Administration strongly opposes its passage.